> Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
To fill in the negative side of authorities, Trump cannot use the mobilized Marines to enforce US laws (aka act in a law enforcement capacity).
As you said, they are restricted to protecting federal buildings and federal agents.
After the first Gulf War they sent us to Greensboro, NC to march in some parade and no one argued against that either because we weren't being used in any law enforcement capacity. Honestly, if we were there for 'riot control' I doubt they would have given us such a warm welcome.
No one is bringing people in, the flags being waved aren't all Mexican and the Mexican flags are a variety of different sizes and the LA local community, including its ~3.5 million residents of Mexican ethnicity, has quite a few Mexican flags of all shapes and sizes without needing any people or flags brought in from outside.
> Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico?
Mexican flags are a common symbol of pride in and solidarity with the community of Mexican ethnicity, rather than serving as agents of Mexico-the-republic, just as Confederate flags are a common symbol of pride in the White racist community, rather than serving as agents of the long-defunct putative regime.
> It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really lazy script writers.
Yeah, well, I won't comment on the “really lazy” part, but unless you are present watching it with your own eyes, you absolutely are watching something packaged for you as propaganda: everything you are seeing is edited to present a narrative by the people presenting it.
That much I can agree with for sure. I've watched media that align left, center, right along with YT influencers that align left center and right. Each spin their own yarn. One would think they are all looking at different events but I can see what they are looking at.
They are arguing there's an insurrenction in California.
A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence, officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them from future briefings." offers verifiable context and reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
I personally believe that especially on a forum such as this, it’s fine to expose the administrations claims to daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even mocked.
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People can say whatever they want. Only violent actions qualify as insurrection.
We have seen what happens to the traitors flying the Confederate flag.
They are listened to, cuddled, and pardoned.
> The authority for the President to use the military in cases of insurrection comes primarily from the Insurrection Act, codified in 10 U.S. Code §§ 251-255. This act provides the statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
> When unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce federal laws in any state by ordinary judicial proceedings. (10 U.S.C. § 252)
> When an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in a state hinders the execution of state and federal laws, depriving people of their constitutional rights, and the state authorities are unable, fail, or refuse to protect those rights. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
> When an insurrection opposes or obstructs the execution of U.S. laws or impedes the course of justice under those laws. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
The last time this Act was used was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots and it withstood all legal contests. This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts. That's their stated goal which they are very consistent and very loud about in interviews. This clearly satisfies the criteria for the Insurrection Act.
I understand that this is a concerning action, but the law is black and white. If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has had more than 200 years to amend it.
> Is there an official definition?
> the law is black and white.
Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to question its legality?
> This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts.
Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The President does not have a legal right to suspend habeas corpus. Only Congress.
> Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians. Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
I would say that mass groups of people gathering on the streets protesting the same cause is a form of "lobbying politicians".
> Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
Sure, if that's what is actually occurring. AFAICT they are mostly peaceful protests with a couple of examples of limited unlawful behavior but that's what the news is showing because burning cop cars make for good ratings.
It's not like the people of LA don't know how to put on a proper riot or anything...
The argument seems to be more of a no-confidence move because the Californians can't keep order. They'll presumably treat the wording seriously but I think the "form of rebellion" is more a jab at the people who keep harping on about insurrections. Looks like a bad argument from any angle I can think of (they aren't invited and there isn't an actual rebellion to put down).
Whenever...the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to ... execute those laws.
A very interesting article about this situation from a Georgetown law professor was posted somewhere deep in this discussion and is well worth reading.
The professor is strongly opposed to the deployment, and calls it "dangerous" and "pernicious" among other things. Nonetheless, he "thinks the federal government has both the constitutional and statutory authority to override local and state governments when it comes to law and order" and that "this [clause] is better understood as a purely administrative provision than it is as giving a substantive veto to the governor."
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-californ...
In an interview with All Things Considered host Juana Summers, Newsom said the mobilization order was not done with communication to or approval by his office. [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5428342/per-california-...
I'm pretty sure you were aware of this but cite the Posse Comitatus Act to make it sound like what Trump is doing is illegal.
You can absolutely argue that what he's doing is unnecessary, disproportional, evil, provocative, etc, but it's not illegal.
Super unclear.
Governor Wallace of Alabama was overtly rejecting a court order to desegregate. There was a law passed by the Congress. A U.S. court making an order. And the U.S. President enforcing it, including with the military. Wallace was defying the U.S., not just President Eisenhower.
The facts and circumstances here are different. The immigration laws being enforced are clear. But the Marines aren't being deployed against illegal immigrants, they're being deployed against mostly-American protesters. There have been zero court actions specific to these protests. This is being entirely done by the President. Moreover, neither Newsom nor Bass are interfering with ICE. So it's a bit ridiculous to compare a former Confederate state's governor personally blocking a U.S. court decision to mostly-peaceful protesters (and where not, being processed by local and state law enforcement) exercising their Constutional rights to speech and assembly while ICE continues to do what it does relatively unimpeded.
Without invoking it, it just is not relevant here.
This is where I find the extremely lawful mindset idiotic. Laws try to encode good behaviour, but can't define it.
None of this is legally established.
Broad immunity for official acts, and absolute immunity for core Constitutional powers. Nothing about "all charges" or self or preëmptive pardons.
> the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory
UET concerns itself with how much power the President has to exercise executive power [1]. Not the boundaries of executive power per se.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Termi...
True. But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act.
I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more power.
Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on a case by case basis.
>> The immunity [for official acts] the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC).
Including in Trump v United States, which was still ongoing at the time Trump won reelection.
>> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct [of contacting state and other election officials] qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
>> Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. [...] Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf p5+, p24
Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the Supreme Court directed.
Trump v. United States was decided with respect to "a federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal district court judge" [1]. It was about the limits of U.S. executive power. Not "every DA in the country."
The only check on presidential power that seems to exist is the impeachment process
Yes. Abrego Garcia is back in America, isn’t he?
By our courts. That is the difference between the President defying the courts to disappear a suspect and due process.
Then you're empowering the President to detain someone solely on suspicion of being a noncitizen. Which will be mighty convenient for a future President when someone says or does something they don't like. (Irrespective of whether they are or are not a citizen.)
Also, these Marines are being deployed against American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble and speak. Whenever the bill comes in, it will easily have costed many orders of magnitude more than the cost of even a death-row inmate.
You're describing expedited removal, a power enacted by the IIRIRA of 1996 [1].
It only applies to those who "make no claim to lawful permanent resident status, and do not seek asylum or express a fear of persecution." It requires specific procedures be followed that are absolutely not being followed by ICE right now.
The only way to go after them (given the current SCOTUS, who made the ruling above), is impeachment. And for that, the president has to do something so bad that 67 senators are willing to find the president guilty.